FIRE RESISTANCE OF STEEL FRAMES

Yoshifumi Sakumoto 1, Taro Nishigaki 2, Kenichi Ikeda 3 and Mamoru Kohno 4

1

NIPPON STEEL CORPORATION, Tokyo, 100-8071, Japan

T A I S E I C O R P O R A T I O N , Y o k oh a m a , 2 4 5 - 0 0 5 1 , J a p a n

SHIMIZU CORPORATION, Tokyo, 105-8007, Japan

BUILDING RESEARCH INSTITUTE, Tsukuba, 305-0802, Japan

ABSTRACT
This paper verifies analytically the fire resistance of the World Trade Centers steel frames and also examines precautions
to be taken in designing skyscrapers.
In the analysis, the temperature increase of steel members for the columns (perimeter and core columns) and the floor
trusses of the World Trade Center, when subjected to heating by hydrocarbon fire and standard fire, was calculated in
case the steel members were adequately fire-protected and in case they were not fire-protected (or in case the fire
protection was blown off). The fire resistance of these steel members was also verified by thermal deformation analysis.
The analysis revealed that, compared with the columns (core columns) of heavy sections, the floor trusses composed of
light-gauge steel members, even if fire-protected or not, experienced a temperature increase at a more rapid pace, that
the increase in steel temperature posed restraint on thermal deformation, thereby causing the steel members to buckle
and leading eventually to the failure of the floor trusses at a relatively low temperature, and that a larger restraint acted
on the end connections.
Based on the findings, this paper advances the following three suggestions:
(i) Elaborate care should be exercised in using light-gauge steel members for skyscrapers.
(ii) When hinged connections are to be used, the existence of any fractures at joints should be checked for especially at
elevated temperatures and after cooling.
(iii) For designing skyscrapers, fire engineering is essential in addition to traditional structural calculations.
Further, the use of steels with superior heat resistance is recommended to improve fire resistance of steel frames. This
does not mean that the fire protection can be deleted, but that given the same or similar protection, the length of time
that the steel can tolerate fire is extended. Or, if the fire protection system is destroyed, the unprotected steel will have
a longer survival time.
This paper will describe the characteristic of the steel and fire resistance of columns made by the steel compared to the
conventional steel. In addition, some of the important major structures in which it has bee used in Japan, will be
presented.

Keyword : Steel, Safety, Structure, Fire-Safe Design, Failure

1. Foreword
The collapse of the World Trade Center Towers (hereafter referred
to as WTC, Photo 1 : at the time of construction) was caused by
damage to the structures due to aircraft impact and ensuing fire
exposure that led to loss of the structures load-bearing capacity.
The WTC, like other high-rise buildings, was required to have threehour fire resistance for its columns and two-hour resistance for its
floor system members. Its steel frames were protected from fire
with insulating materials (hereafter referred to as fire protection)
to meet the requirements.
The lengths of time between the aircraft impact and total collapse
were fifty-six minutes for WTC1 and one hour forty-three minutes
for WTC2. Indeed, there is little point in discussing the precise
details of the collapse time, since damage to the structures due to
both aircraft impact and the burning of the aviation fuel were
extraordinary

eventsradical

departures

from

the

conditions

expected by fire laws and regulations. But, to clarify the cause for

Photo 1. WTC under construction

the collapse can be considered extremely useful for designing highrise buildings in the future.
From this point of view, this paper examines the fire resistance of WTCs steel frames by referring to the
report [1] made public by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (hereafter referred to as FEMA
Report).

2. Fire Exposure
The Boeing 767-200ER aircraft that impacted the WTC carried about 10,000 gallons (about 38,000 liters) of
jet fuel. The FEMA report assumes: of the total jet fuel carried, 1,000 to 3,000 gallons were exhausted as
fire balls, 3,000 gallons flowed onto other floors and the remaining 4,000 gallons were burnt within the
impact floors.
The calorific value of the jet fuel was 1 to 1.5 GW. If one-third or a half of that energy was released to the
structure, gas temperatures reached 900 to
1,100C around the ceilings and 400 to 800C
at the rest of indoor spaces according to the
analysis of the FEMA Report. The jet fuel
remaining on the floors burned within about
five

minutes,

with

the

blaze

engulfing

combustible materials (4 to 12 psf: 20 to 60

kg/m2) in the floor areas.
The fire exposure assumed to occur in typical
buildings is called the standard fire and the
resulting gas temperature is specified in ISO835
[2] (the same as JIS A1304 [3]). The same may
be said, within very close limits, of the U.S.
specifications (ASTM E119 [4]).

FIG. 1. Comparison between Standard Fire and

Hydrocarbon Pool Fire

For buildings other than typical buildings, the gas temperature for a petrol spill fire is also specified in the
United States (ASTM E1529 [5], hereafter referred to as hydrocarbon pool fire). Fig. 1 shows the
comparison of gas temperature between standard fire and hydrocarbon pool fire. In the case of a
hydrocarbon pool fire, the temperature at first rises more rapidly to a high of about 1,100C in the first five
minutes (than for the case of a standard fire) and, afterwards, the temperature remains constant according
to the U.S. specifications.

3. Fire Protection and Steel-Frame Temperature

Fire protection for WTC1 was originally asbestos-containing spraying up to the 39th floor, but later it was
changed to vermiculite plaster insulation. WTC2 was fire-protected wholly with vermiculite plaster insulation.
The fire-protection thickness for the floor trusses was originally 3/4 in. but, as a retrofit during tenant
changes, was later redoubled to 1-1/2 in. For the columns and beams, the thickness was not specified
because of variations in member sizes, but the thicknesses adequate to meet the specified two and threehour protection requirements were adopted.
Photo 2 shows the core column of ultra-jumbo H-shape before fire protection and Photos 3 and 4 show the
floor trusses before and after fire protection. The motion damper inserted between the outer wall and the
end of the lower chord of the truss was not fire-protected, as it was not a load-carrying member of the
main structure. It can be assumed from the photo that spraying to such a small cross-section members
posed great difficulties.
According to the FEMA Report, the aircraft incursion supposedly blasted away the vast majority of fire
protection on the impact floors. Photo 5 shows the steel frames of adjoining Bankers Trust Building that
was hit directly by the columns falling from WTC2. Their fire protection was largely blown away, and it is
not hard to imagine that the same phenomenon occurred at the impact floors of WTC1 and WTC2.
The temperature of heated steel frames varies, depending on heating conditions (standard fire or
hydrocarbon pool fire and heating duration), existence of fire protection, insulative properties of protective
materials and thermal capacity of steel members.
In this study, an analysis similar to that of the FEMA Report was made on the columns plus the diagonal
members (rods) of the floor trusses. The analysis results are shown in Figs. 2 and 3. The sizes of the
members adopted are as follows:
Core column

H-455.2 x 418.5 x 42.04 x 67.56

Hp / A = 35.7

Perimeter column -355.6 x 355.6 x 6.35 x 6.35

Hp / A = 173.4

Floor truss rod

Hp / A = 144.6

-1.09 (27.7mm)

The sizes of the columns (core and perimeter) are only those assumed because the FEMA Report gives no
specified dimensions for them at and around the impact floors. Hp/A is the indicator of a members thermal
capacity (the rate of a members temperature increase), with Hp = circumferential length and A = sectional
area. The larger the Hp/A, the higher the rate of steel-frame temperature increase.
Figs. 2 and 3 clearly reveal the following:
(i) The increase of the steel-frame temperature corresponds to thermal capacity (Hp/A), regardless of fire
protection. In the case of the floor truss rod and the perimeter column with smaller thermal capacity
(Hp/A is larger), the temperatures rise more rapidly, reaching as high as 900C in five minutes
especially when the y are not fire-protected.
(ii) By comparison, in the case of the core column that has extremely large thermal capacity, the speed at
which the temperature rises is moderate even when it is not fire-protected (or when fire protection is
blown off). The temperature increases to about 600C in approximately 20 minutes.
(iii) In the case of a hydrocarbon pool fire, the temperature of steel frames (fire-protected or unprotected)
increases faster than in the case of standard fire, especially in the first five minutes. A hydrocarbon pool
fire causes the gas temperature to rise rapidly and that is why, when steel frames are not fire-protected,

the difference between a hydrocarbon pool fire and a standard fire is more pronounced in terms of the
rate of the steel-frame temperature increase.

Photo 2. Core column (ultra-jambo H-shape)

Photo 3. Floor truss (before protected)

Photo 4. Fire Protection of floor truss

Photo 5. Fire protection at Bunker Trust Building

FIG. 2. Steel Temperature Rise Subjected to

Heating (No fire protection)

FIG. 3. Steel Temperature Rise Subjected to

Heating (3/4-inch thick sprayed fire protection)

4. Fire Resistance of Steel Frames

Steel strength is reduced at high temperatures. A36 steels high-temperature strength and its stress-strain
relationship at high temperatures are shown in Figs. 4 and 5, respectively (FEMA Report). A36 steels yield
point lowers by nearly half at 550C, as shown in Fig. 4 (A36 steel [6]).
The fire resistance of columns and beams can be verified by a fire test. There are two methods for fire test:
one is to obtain the time of failure (fire resistance hours) through loaded heating (the loaded heat test) and
the other is to obtain the period of fire resistance from the temperature of steel materials only through

heating (the heat test). The condition of failure immediately after a loaded heat test made on a column is
shown in Photo 6. The proof stress of steel frames decreases with the increase of temperature, leading to
the loss of the frames load-bearing capacity.
For the ASTM E-119 fire test in the United States [4], the heat test is prevalent for columns, and the critical
temperatures for steel members are specified at:
Column:

538C (1,000F average, 1,100 maximum)

Beam:

593C (1,100F average, 1,200 maximum)

As for fire testing in Japan [3], the heat test traditionally has been applied with the critical temperatures
specified as follows:
Column:

350C average, 450C maximum

Beam:

350C average, 450C maximum

But, today, the loaded heat test is also in practice. The load applied is specified as a load equivalent to the
long-term critical stress (2/3 of the yield point).
Fig. 6 shows the integration of the critical temperatures in the two countries with Fig. 4 (high-temperature
strength of steel materials). The difference between the two countries is about twice in the critical
temperature, eventually leading to a wide difference in the thickness of fire protection required.
This study obtained analytically the fire resistance of the columns (core and perimeter) of the WTC at and
around the impact floors. The sizes of the columns adopted were identical to those used for the analysis of
steel-frame temperatures in Section 3. The steel grade was A36 and the ratio of axial force was set at 0.5,
although no reference is made to the columns ratio of axial force in the FEMA Report. However, since the
stress applied on the diagonal members of the floor trusses was estimated, on calculation, at about 50% of
the yield point, the ratio was assumed to be the same.

FIG. 4. High-temperature Strength of A36 Steel

FIG. 5. Stress-strain Curves of A36 Steel

At High Temperatures

FIG.5. Stress-strain Curves of A36 Steel

At High Temperatures
FIG. 6. Relationship between Strength of Steel
Materials and Critical Temperature
FIG. 7. Analysis of Fire Resistance of Column

Fig. 7 shows the results of the analysis. The columns underwent thermal expansion as the temperature
increased (vertical elongation: V), buckled due to the lowering of steel strength and the loss of their loadbearing capacity (horizontal deflection at the middle of the columns: H). The calcula ted buckling
temperatures were 515C for a core column and 520C for a perimeter column.
A comparison between the above analysis results and the critical temperature shown in Fig. 6 reveals:
(i) The buckling temperature of the columns virtually corresponds to steels high-temperature strength and
the columns ratio of axial force.
(ii) The U.S. critical temperature, 538C, is considered almost equivalent to the ratio of axial force of 0.5.
The failure temperature of beams is related to the presence of the floor. It is higher than that of the
columns, because the temperature of the steel frames in contact with the floor increases at a slower rate
and also because the floor itself shares the applied load. The critical temperature of 593C for beams, as
specified in the United States, is considered to put a restriction on the load applied.
Attention should also be paid to the fact that the high-temperature strength of steel materials shown in Figs.
4 and 6 is the average. Fig. 8 shows the results of examining the high- temperature strength of steel
materials, made by the Japan Iron and Steel Federation (JISF) [7]. The high-temperature strength varies
widely, as shown in the figure. In addition, there are cases where columns and beams are restrained by
peripheral frames due to thermal expansion, resulting in failure at lower temperatures than expected, as
discussed later. It is considered that, with such indefinite factors in mind, the critical temperature of 350C
adopted in Japan secures a higher level of safety.

Photo 6. Buckling of Column after Loaded Heat Test

FIG. 8. Variations in High-Temperature

Strength of Steel Materials

Fig. 9 shows the schematic diagram of the WTCs floor structure. The floor is of a structure designed to
support lightweight concrete (10 cm thick) on steel decking by trusses arranged at a spacing of 6 ft. 8 in.
(about 2 m). Their maximum length is 60 ft. (18.3 m). The trusses are lightweight, using angles for the
upper and lower chords and round bars for the diagonal members. Their ends are linked to the perimeter
columns and the core girders by two high-strength bolts (A325 bolt, 5/8 in. dia.) followed by welding after
erection. Fig. 10 shows the details of the truss end (FEMA Report).
Fig. 11 analyzes the failure process of the floor truss by raising the steel-frame temperature.
The FEMA Report gives no reference to the dimensions of the upper and lower chords. For this analysis,
two angles, each measuring L-3.5 x 3/8 in. (88.9 x 9.525 mm), were overlapped to match the normaltemperature stress level

(about 50% of yield point) of the trusss diagonal member (1.09 in.). Though the floor trusses are the
composite structure with the concrete slabs, the concrete slabs were not considered in the analysis. The
loads were design loads (dead load and service load).
When the hinged end was adopted for one end of the truss and the roller end for the other end of the truss,
the increase of the steel-frame temperature caused the truss deformation to concentrate on the roller end
side and the vertical members of the utmost end to buckle at 340C. Deflection at the time of buckling was
7.50 cm in the middle of the truss, and horizontal deflection on the roll end side was 6.61 cm.
When each end of the truss was hinged, constraints on the thermal expansion of the truss resulted in the
trusss large deflection. Constraints concentrated on the upper chord, and the resultant buckling of the
chord caused the failure of the truss at 264C. The central deflection at the time of the failure was 27.9 cm.
Fig. 12 shows the truss ends horizontal restraint load. The restraint load was pulled inward at normal
temperature. Due to the thermal expansion of the truss, it then turned around but was eased by
deformation of the upper chord. Maximum restraint load occurring outwards was about 30 tons. According
to the FEMA Report, the shear strength of the high-strength bolts at each end (A325 bolt, 5/8 in. in inside
dia. x 2) is as follows (the strength decreases by half at 550C):
Room temperature: Ru = 232 kips (105.2 tons)
550C (1,022F):

Ru = 116 kips (52.6 tons)

Since the trusses were connected to the perimeter columns and the core girders, it is assumed that
approximately the central values of those given in the above two cases must have been applied for actual
behavior. Besides, as the floor slabs serve to retard the thermal expansion of the trusses and to constrain
the buckling of the upper chords, it can also be assumed that the actual failure temperatures must have
been higher than those in the above analyses.

FIG. 9. Floor Structure

FIG. 11. Analysis of Thermal Deformation of Floor Truss

FIG. 10. Details of Floor Truss End

FIG. 12. Restraint Load at Floor Truss End

But, when such a large-span truss is heated and undergoes thermal expansion, it deforms (deflects) due to
constraints on its ends and its individual structural members are subjected to large compression stresses. In
addition, a large shearing force acts on the end connections. From these, it is quite likely that the failure
temperature of the truss is far lower than the critical temperature for beams (593C: 1,100F) in the fire test.

5. Proposition and the use of Fire Resistant Steel

From the above analytical study and examination of the fire resistance of the WTCs steel frames, the
following precautions in the fire-safe design of high-rise buildings are proposed:
(i) When lightweight steel frames are used, a thorough check should be made for the deformation of
structural members and the failure of end supports (especially in the case of the hinged end) during the
course of fire.
(ii) Adequate fire-protection materials and construction methods should be selected.
Among other effective alternatives is the utilization of steels excelling in high-temperature strength.
Fire resistant steel (Sakumoto et. al, 1992-1, hereinafter referred to as FR Steel), containing such alloying
elements as molybdenum and chromium, is superior in high-temperature strength to ordinary steels. Fig.
13 shows the yield strength at high temperature of FR steel (Grade 325) and conventional steel. The yield
strength at high temperature of conventional steel decreases to two-thirds the specified room-temperature
value (217N/mm2) at around 350C. On the other hand, this specified value is guaranteed at 600C for FR
Steel.
A yield strength of two-thirds the specified room temperature value corresponds to allowable stress for
sustained loads. Because fire and earthquake are not taken into consideration simultaneously, it can be said
that yield strength able to support the dead weight of a building, allowable stress for sustained loads, is the
strength required at the time of fire.
The elevated yield strength at high temperature is obtained from metallurgy, in which additive elements
such as molybdenum precipitate to affect the molecular structure and, therefore, the yield strength.
Table 1 shows mechanical properties of FR Steel (Grade 325) with comparison of conventional steel ASTM
A992 [9]. The performance of FR steel at room temperature corresponds to that specified in the standards
for Japanese anti-seismic structural steel (JIS G3136 [10]), with yield ratio under 80%, Charpy absorption
energy 27J or over at 0C. Furthermore, it has the same weldability as that of conventional steel.
TABLE 1. Mechanical Properties of FR Steel
Standard

Grade
2

N/mm (ksi)

Yield strength

Tensile strength

N/mm (ksi)

Yield ratio

Elongation

Charpy

N/mm (ksi)

energy J

at 0 C

at 600 C

at 0 C

at 0 C

at 0 C

at 0 C

min / max

min

min / max

max

min

min

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

FR Steel

Grade 325

325/445

217 min

490 / 610

80

21

27

AST M A992

Grade 345 (50)

345/450 (50/65)

450 min

85

18

1)

Note 1) : charpy absorption energy is a supplementary requirement for use at the option of the purchaser

Application of FR Steel
Whether FR Steel is used with or without protection is determined by building application and design
concept.
Fig. 14 shows numbers of buildings using FR Steel provided by Nippon Steel since 1989. Car parks, atriums,
sport facilities, art galleries and a station building have been the major applications without protection.
External steel-frame buildings also are a major application.

In case of buildings with high combustible loads, such as

office buildings, warehouses, department stores and
collective dwellings, thickness of protection can be
reduced or the redundancy of a steel frame can be
improved by extending fire resistance time with FR Steel
protected with the same thickness as conventional steel.

Station
buildings(8

Sport faclities
External steel
frames

Car park
Photos. 7 and 8 show the application of FR Steel to a
multi-story car park.

Others

Art galleries

Car parks

Atriums

This 17-story car-park building,

constructed close to Chiba Station, is one of the largest

of its kind in Japan. It will accommodate 1,800 vehicles.
Conventional steel-frame car parks present a dark and
dirty appearance because the steel-frame protection
blackens by exhaust gases and exfoliates when exposed
to rain and wind.

FIG. 14. Application of FR Steel

With FR Steel, no protection is

required for the frame and making the columns slender

enlarges the parking area.
Sport facilities
For this gymnasium, constructed at Tokoname Park (Aichi Prefecture), a dynamic structure was adopted in
which the roof, a space truss structure measuring 100.8 x 50.4 m, is supported on four sides by large truss
structures (Photo 9). For the large truss structures, prestressed concrete was at first considered because
protection is necessary when a steel-frame structure is adopted.

However, FR Steel that matches the

design intention was adopted as the material for this large truss structure.
Station building
East Japan Railway Company constructed a commercial building spanning the tracks of Oimachi Station in
Tokyo (Photos. 10 and 11). In the case of constructing a large-scale building spanning a railway, it is
necessary to provide protection for steel frames in the vicinity of the tracks. However, because of the
exfoliation of maintenance, steel-frame construction without protection was required for this building.
Office building (external steel-frame building)
This 31-story building in Kobe houses offices and research laboratories (Photo 12). A suspended megastructure, in which six stories are structured as one unit, was adopted for the construction of the building.
It features a structural design in which the mega-structure is presented as the buildings structural design
element. In the building construction, FR Steel was adopted to give the impression of slenderness of the
structural members through the application of lighter protection to columns and beams.
In addition, it is important to verify the fire resistance of steel frames by means of fire-safety design.
Fire tests address such structural members as columns and beams, as stated in section 4, and they do not
reflect the behavior of steel frames as a whole during a fire. Steel frames expand thermally due to heating
by fire and the structural members are exposed to large additional stress by constraints. Especially
lightweight structural members not only undergo rapid temperature increases within a short time, but also
lose their load-bearing capacity even at a relatively low temperature due to buckling and the like. Besides,
load concentrates in connections, so hinged end and similar connections can fracture during the course of
heating or cooling.

6. Summary

Photo. 8. Steel Frame of Sen City Car Plaza

Photo. 7. View of Sen City Car Plaza

Photo. 9. View of Tokoname Park Gymnasium

Photo. 10. Steel Frame of Sen City Car Plaza

Photo. 11. View of Oimachi Station Building

Photo. 12. View of P&G Building

5. Summary
In Japan, the number of such failure analyses have been increasing since around 1990, where fire-safety
designs are used to verify the fire resistance of steel frames, targeting buildings adopting FR steel and
concrete-filled steel tube columns. Henceforth, imperative is the active adoption of fire-safety designs
particularly for high-rise buildings and publicly important buildings. The adoption of fire-safety design for
high-rise steel buildings ensures greater safety in fire. FR Steel, used successfully in Japan for a decade, is
an option to be considered.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The photos of the WTC at the time of construction, shown in this paper, were provided by Mikio Kasajima,
former president of Daiken Sekkei Co. His cooperation is highly appreciated.

REFERENCES
[1] World Trade Center; Building Performance Study, (2002), Federal Emergency Management Agency, New York, U.S.A.
[2] ISO834 (1975), Fire-Resistance Tests, Elements of Building Construction, International Organization for
Standardization
[3] JIS A1304 (1975), Method for Fire Resistant Tests for Structural Part of Buildings, Japan Standards Association,
Tokyo, Japan
[4] ASTM E119 (1983), Standard Methods for Fire Tests of Building Construction and Materials, American Society of
Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, U.S.A.
[5] ASTM E1529, Standards Test Methods for Determining Effects of Large Hydrocarbon Pool Fires on Structural Members
and Assemblies, American Society of Testing and Materials,
[6] ASTM A36, Standard Specification for Carbon Structural Steel, American Society of Testing and Materials, Philadelphia,
U.S.A.
[7] Zakoh, R., et al, (2000), High-temperature Strength of Steel Products for Building Structures, Summary of Technical
Papers of Annual Meeting, Architectural Institute of Japan
[8] Sakumoto, Y., Yamaguchi, T., Ohashi, M., and Saito H. (1992), High-Temperature Properties of Fire-Resistant Steel
for Buildings, ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering, 118(2), pp.392-407
[9] ASTM A992 (2001), Standard Specification for Structural Shapes, American Society of Testing and Materials,
Philadelphia, U.S.A.
[10] JIS G3136 (2001), Rolled Steels for Building Structure, Japan Standards Association, Tokyo, Japan